San Bernardino terror attacks and presidential tiptoeing

[Davius]

"It is possible that this was terrorist related, but we don't know. It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said. (CNN)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politi...ical-reaction/

Workplace related....really.

Its reminiscent of the highly questionable, "this was workplace violence" when our glorious Apologist In Chief referred to the Fort Hood shootings, which were religiously motivated (Islamic terrorism).



The most recent Islamic Terror attack in San Bernardino has the perpetrators with many firearms, much ammo (4000+ rounds), and up to 30 pipe bombs, a bomb lab and a missing hard drive as well. Evidence is being brought out that the wife may have radicalized the weak-willed hubby. He was in Saudi Arabia twice recently, may have had contact with Islamic Jihadists.

Ummmmmm, "workplace violence"....really? To even try to call this "workplace related" is insulting and shows the utter arrogance of this administration. These cowardly savages were planning to kills lots of civilians. To say otherwise is a tantamount to criminal negligence.

Why are Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their ilk so reluctant to utter the words "terrorist" and more importantly "Islamic terrorism"? Are they attempting to seem nice? Or ward off the most dreaded of all accusations "islamophobia"? They sure are willing to jump into the "guns are bad!" rhetoric and oh boy, imagine if this had been a white Christian shooter? They'd most certainly add, "domestic terror" to their comments on day one, but no such rhetoric is present in this case.
Further: imagine if they were christian white shooters and shot up a some Muslim holiday party? Would their rhetoric be so cautious, or would it be instantly damning and harsh? I picture the phrases, "hateful, biased, disgusting, sickening, etc" being used. None of that here.

As a related side note: a neighbor of San Bernardino killers Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik refused to report the pair to authorities after witnessing suspicious activity at their apartment over fears she would be labeled racist.
So the politically correct guilt culture prevents what might have been an intervention in this case. Political correntness wins again. Hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil, especially if it might offend someone rather than save someone's life

Dancing on eggshells around the truth of Radical Islamic Terrorism does not help the situation at all. It also DOES NOT HELP everyday peaceful Muslims. This tiptoeing is counterproductive and damaging to all BUT violent jihadi.



EDIT: And just as I was about to post, this pops up on my screen:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san...ing/index.html

Will will Appologobama call it what it is?

[Enros]

If the FBI doesn't know their motives yet, how do you?

It may turn out to be Islamic terrorism, but we have no idea yet.

EDIT: It has now been announced as ISIS terrorism.

[Gaidin]

If the FBI doesn't know their motives yet, how do you?

It may turn out to be Islamic terrorism, but we have no idea yet.

The FBI doesn't make public announcements of evidence and/or motives of shooters when one is in custody involving federal law. News at 11.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's gonna take some time before this incident is brought to light completely but it's really early to tell that it was Islamic terrorism or terrorism at all. There are many questions and certain facts that are lacking. They left a kid behind. As far as I know there is no statement made by the couple about the attack. There was no letter left behind in the apartment. There was no manifesto online. It also looked like they planned for attacks but not this one. Could they not take in one Christmas party? They clearly expected to be able to go back to their house and continue attacks. Yet, they attacked a public place in broad daylight which should be easy to realize that you're not getting away from that. It's also said that the neighbor did not report them for suspicious activity but what that suspicious activity is is not told... A lot of things just don't add up.

[IronBrig4]

Yeah, the FBI has a narrow, specific criteria for terrorism. Dylan Roof? Unquestionably terrorism. The guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic? We'll see. And we'll also see with this latest shooting.

What I find particularly loathsome are the folks buying guns like it's going out of style. For most of them, it's not about personal protection. It's because they're terrified of a government conspiracy.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah, the FBI has a narrow, specific criteria for terrorism. Dylan Roof? Unquestionably terrorism. The guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic? We'll see. And we'll also see with this latest shooting.

What I find particularly loathsome are the folks buying guns like it's going out of style. For most of them, it's not about personal protection. It's because they're terrified of a government conspiracy.

Except that it is not a conspiracy and there are plenty of radical left calling for abolition of 2nd amendment. Not to mention that to an average American US federal government is bigger threat then any imaginary overblown "terrorist" nonsense.

If the FBI doesn't know their motives yet, how do you?

It may turn out to be Islamic terrorism, but we have no idea yet.

EDIT: It has now been announced as ISIS terrorism.

Well, ISIS is Islamic, so...

[Gaidin]

Well, ISIS is Islamic, so...

Hey dude, let's do something about Christianity based on that shooter at the Planned Parenthood clinic saying something about "no more baby parts" yo. You want to get that general? Let's get that general.

Or, here's a better idea, when it's ISIS, deal with ISIS. When it's an insane nutcase, deal with an insane nutcase.

[Heathen Hammer]

Hey dude, let's do something about Christianity based on that shooter at the Planned Parenthood clinic saying something about "no more baby parts" yo. You want to get that general? Let's get that general.

PP attack wasn't political, just a robbery gone wrong. But yeah, Christianity and Islam are known for inspiring violence throughout history. Arbrahamic religions are a problem.

Or, here's a better idea, when it's ISIS, deal with ISIS. When it's an insane nutcase, deal with an insane nutcase.

Abrahamic religions in themselves are forms of mass psychosis.

[Gaidin]

PP attack wasn't political, just a robbery gone wrong. But yeah, Christianity and Islam are known for inspiring violence throughout history. Arbrahamic religions are a problem.

Abrahamic religions in themselves are forms of mass psychosis.

And we've got people on record protecting certain Amendments here. What makes the 1st special for being gutted instead of going after the people specifically committing violence with criminal charges?

[B. W.]

What I find particularly loathsome are the folks buying guns like it's going out of style. For most of them, it's not about personal protection. It's because they're terrified of a government conspiracy.

A gun control zealot speaking authoritatively on why people buy guns. You really amaze me.

[IronBrig4]

A gun control zealot speaking authoritatively on why people buy guns. You really amaze me.

There's a difference between zealotry and desiring moderately tougher gun control laws. As most state laws are right now, it's harder to buy scuba gear than it is to buy a gun.

I want a couple of guns. But that's just it. I WANT them. I want a Springfield Model 1861 because I like studying the Civil War and I think that model is neat. I'm certainly not going to make veiled threats at any legislator or law enforcement officer because they support tougher control.

The people who go out and buy guns in the wake of a mass shooting? They're probably scanning the skies for black helicopters.

[B. W.]

There's a difference between zealotry and desiring moderately tougher gun control laws. As most state laws are right now, it's harder to buy scuba gear than it is to buy a gun.

I want a couple of guns. But that's just it. I WANT them. I want a Springfield Model 1861 because I like studying the Civil War and I think that model is neat. I'm certainly not going to make veiled threats at any legislator or law enforcement officer because they support tougher control.

The people who go out and buy guns in the wake of a mass shooting? They're probably scanning the skies for black helicopters.

So it seems that lots of folks want guns including yourself and every time something like this happens there are calls for gun control legislation, which would necessarily drive the folks who have already been looking to buy a certain gun to go ahead and buy it while they can.

And yet you jump to the conclusion that they're nuts...pretty much explains where you are coming from.

[Phier]

So it seems that lots of folks want guns including yourself and every time something like this happens there are calls for gun control legislation, which would necessarily drive the folks who have already been looking to buy a certain gun to go ahead and buy it while they can.

And yet you jump to the conclusion that they're nuts...pretty much explains where you are coming from.

Principle of scarcity. Obama is the best firearms salesman of all time.

[snuggans]

12 of the 14 victims were county employees, probably department of health too like the male. even though this couple was radicalized, this felt really personal. there's also this thing i keep hearing where he left the party angrily or something? just saying, jihadists normally want to maximize casualties directed at everybody, this attack presents conflict of interest in the male shooter, and most of the targeted victims share the same place of employment as him, instead of everyone at the center. regardless though, it appears that the female left an online post hailing daesh, i guess the scope of the attack was workplace but they are technically jihadist terrorists.

[athanaric]

12 of the 14 victims were county employees, probably department of health too like the male. even though this couple was radicalized, this felt really personal. there's also this thing i keep hearing where he left the party angrily or something? just saying, jihadists normally want to maximize casualties directed at everybody, this attack presents conflict of interest in the male shooter, and most of the targeted victims share the same place of employment as him, instead of everyone at the center. regardless though, it appears that the female left an online post hailing daesh, i guess the scope of the attack was workplace but they are technically jihadist terrorists.

I think it might be a case of mixed motivation. The question is, what came first - the jihadist idea or the personal angle? Maybe the guy felt slighted or something and used this as an excuse.

... what about it? Farooq was a born and bred American, of South Asian heritage. Refugees are Syrians, born and bred in Syria, of Syrian heritage. Syrians and Pakistanis aren't even of the same race. Not to mention many of the Syrian refugees are from minority sects, or are Christian, and they are actively fleeing ISIS when they lived literally right next door. Someone who lived in Raqqa and refused to join ISIS is about the least likely person in the world to be a terrorist, because ISIS killed their friends or family.

A large portion of the "refugees" seeking refuge in Europe are non-Syrians, including South Asians (particularly Afghans). So yeah, depends on who you're talking about.

That said, I don't see why the US shouldn't take in some Syrian refugees - there sure is more space in America than in Germany. And you can always vet them first.

Also it seems we are getting a picture of this guys background: apparently his father, Syed Senior, had a history of severe mental illness and domestic abuse, and 'threatened to kill himself on a daily basis'.

I think you have to be mentally ill, or just plain evil, to do what they did. Particularly seeing as they didn't seem to be in any kind of desperate situation.

[Mangalore]

...

Will will Appologobama call it what it is?

How precisely would a president running around crying "Islam is evil","Islamic terrorism","WAHHH!" help anybody? I fail to see how that has anything to do with actual security measures...

[Roma_Victrix]

I still don't buy that this was a terrorist attack. I think it's more a case of, some nutcases pledge allegiance to ISIS, some commit workplace massacres, but here we have a combination of both. Nothing to do with any actual terrorist organisation and everything to do with gun control. Anyone can pledge allegience to ISIS, it doesn't make them a member of a terrorist cell. But can they then go out and shoot people? Only if they can easily get their hands on guns. And surprise surprise, the guns were legally acquired (the handguns were bought by the couple, and the semi-automatic rifles were legally bought by someone else and then handed over/stolen?).

Terrorists don't attack people they know personally and they don't wait around to get caught by police. My bet is, the couple were planning a terrorist attack at some unspecified point in the future, but were provoked into killing Farooq's work colleagues before they could plan and execute it. It was unquestionably a workplace mass shooting even if it was a terror attack, but it was not intended to provoke terror, it was intented to kill a specific set of people, so I don't think we can call it a 'terror attack' even if the killers were clearly terrorist wannabes.

So...it's a case of workplace terrorism? That sounds like a compromise and midway point between terrorism and using terrorist tactics to kill specific colleagues and workmates in particular that you despise. In either case this couple had a whole lot of pipe bombs, so it seems pretty clear that they were intending to blow stuff up in addition to this shooting. They might have carried out the shooting on a whim, but it seems pretty clear that they had been planning a larger attack for a little while now.

I'm not sure about any of you guys, but I'm most disturbed by the fact that this guy not only had kids to look after but also a well-paying job and a seemingly cushy life in California. How someone like that becomes radicalized and would rather go down in a hail of bullets is beyond me. Then again, I've never been brainwashed into joining an apocalyptic death cult, so there's that. Honestly, though, this is the road that is paved by religious fundamentalism. If you are a literalist and believe every word in the Quran is true and doesn't even need sholarly interpretation, then it's not much of a leap to go from there to thinking the nutty prophecies in the Hadiths about the end times and Armageddon are true too.

How precisely would a president running around crying "Islam is evil","Islamic terrorism","WAHHH!" help anybody? I fail to see how that has anything to do with actual security measures...

It's pretty clear why Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, is reluctant to say anything besides the line "Islam is the religion of peace," because ISIS then would love to hash together footage of the president saying hostile things about Islam that they could use in their neat little propaganda videos. They'd quote such things in their Dabiq magazine to no end, too, as a recruitment tool for Sunni Muslims. Basically, it would be a case of: "SEE? I told you! I told you the West wants to eat your babies. Come join us and fight the infidels!"

[Gaidin]

It's pretty clear why Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, is reluctant to say anything besides the line "Islam is the religion of peace," because ISIS then would love to hash together footage of the president saying hostile things about Islam that they could use in their neat little propaganda videos. They'd quote such things in their Dabiq magazine to no end, too, as a recruitment tool for Sunni Muslims. Basically, it would be a case of: "SEE? I told you! I told you the West wants to eat your babies. Come join us and fight the infidels!"

Well, it's also a pretty clear pattern that at least half the political country gets disturbed when the president voices a side of an investigation at any point of it, much less at the beginning of it.

[Enros]

It has now been announced that the couple pledged their allegiance to ISIS.

[Copperknickers II]

I still don't buy that this was a terrorist attack. I think it's more a case of, some nutcases pledge allegiance to ISIS, some commit workplace massacres, but here we have a combination of both. Nothing to do with any actual terrorist organisation and everything to do with gun control. Anyone can pledge allegience to ISIS, it doesn't make them a member of a terrorist cell. But can they then go out and shoot people? Only if they can easily get their hands on guns. And surprise surprise, the guns were legally acquired (the handguns were bought by the couple, and the semi-automatic rifles were legally bought by someone else and then handed over/stolen?).

Terrorists don't attack people they know personally and they don't wait around to get caught by police. My bet is, the couple were planning a terrorist attack at some unspecified point in the future, but were provoked into killing Farooq's work colleagues before they could plan and execute it. It was unquestionably a workplace mass shooting even if it was a terror attack, but it was not intended to provoke terror, it was intented to kill a specific set of people, so I don't think we can call it a 'terror attack' even if the killers were clearly terrorist wannabes.